Seoul High Court 2012Nu35087 (Law No. 21, 2013.08)

The early 2009 middle 1476

The amount of sales received by selling the right to permanent use of a charnel to the buyer is attributed to the income in the business year to which the date of receipt of the consideration belongs.

The inclusion of the right to permanent use of a charnel in the gross income for the business year which includes the date of the payment for the sale to the purchaser shall be lawful, and the sales agency fee paid to the business members shall not be recognized because personal information, such as resident registration numbers and contact information, is not verified.

Article 13 of the Framework Act on National Taxes.

Application, approval, etc. of an organization deemed a corporation under Article 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act.

2013Du19035 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing Corporate Tax, etc.

AAA President BB church

Head of the High Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 2012Nu35087 Decided August 21, 2013

September 24, 2014

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

"After citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its holding, and found that there is a provision on the removal and refund of a charnel in the terms of "terms for the establishment and management of facilities attached to a membership agreement entered into with the buyers of a charnel," but this is merely based on the premise that the buyer renounces the right to permanent use of a charnel, the principal content of which is to grant the buyer the right to permanent use of a charnel, the granting the right to permanent use of a charnel, and there is no provision restricting the period of the right to the permanent use of a charnel in the Act on Funeral Services, etc., unlike the grave, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff received the sale price from the buyers of a charnel under a membership agreement for the business year 205 and 2006, which belongs to the date of the receipt of the right to permanent use of a charnel." In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is justified, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the period of reversion under the agreement to use of a charnel.

2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3

The Plaintiff’s allegation in this part of the grounds of appeal is that the lower court erred in its judgment even though the Plaintiff paid the sales agency fees to the sales agency. However, this is merely an error in the selection of evidence or fact-finding which belongs to the exclusive authority of the lower court, which is a fact-finding court, and thus cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal. Furthermore, even if examining the lower court’s judgment in light of the records, it did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.